The challenge, submitted as a request for internal review, argues the approaches proposed in the delegated act will not deliver permanent removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as required under the CRCF Regulation, and are thus not fit for purpose.
A coalition of environmental NGOs is requesting the European Commission to review methodologies for biogenic emissions capture with carbon storage (Bio-CCS) and biochar carbon removal (biochar) under a Delegated Act for the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation.
This request is brought by NGOs Carbon Market Watch, WWF EU, Fern, Robin Wood, Protect the Forest, Association Workshop for All Beings, Save Estonia’s Forests, The Clean Air Committee and 2Celsius. The NGOS are represented by Ben Mitchell of 11KBW and Clémentine Baldon of Baldon Avocats, with legal and scientific support by the Lifescape Project and the Partnership for Policy Integrity operating jointly as the Forest Litigation Collaborative (FLC).
The request for internal review lays out evidence that the Commission’s methodologies disregard current science and international norms for quantification, monitoring and sustainability of bio-CCS and biochar, ignoring impacts on forests and agricultural lands.
It further warns the Commission’s approach weakens the integrity of the EU’s carbon removal framework and undermines EU climate targets by promoting activities that could actually increase CO₂ emissions, instead of removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. This will divert investment away from more reliable carbon removals just as the Commission is assessing whether to use these removals to offset fossil emissions in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).
The European Commission has up to 22 weeks to reply to the request, according to article 10(3) of the Aarhus Regulation, providing reasons as to why it is refusing or accepting the proposed grounds for review of its act. If refused, an action for annulment of that decision can be brought by the NGOs before the EU General Court.
Marlène Ramón Hernández, Policy expert in carbon removals at Carbon Market Watch said: “Both within and outside of the expert group, environmental organisations have consistently put forward recommendations to improve the design of these methodologies. Yet the Commission took a different approach, leaving us with flawed methodologies that do not even comply with the original CRCF mandate. We hope that this request for internal review will help bring the integrity these methodologies so desperately need.”
Elsie Blackshaw-Crosby, Director of Legal at The Lifescape Project said: “The Request for Internal Review procedure is an important tool for NGOs to raise concerns over Commission legislation which affects the environment, such as the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Delegated Regulation. By filing this Request, the claimants are holding the Commission to account by challenging an approach that risks enabling the very greenwashing the Regulation was intended to prevent.”
Sofia Ghezzi, Climate and Land Use Policy Officer at WWF EU said: “These methodologies are not grounded in science, and it is possible they might end up doing the opposite of what they should do: taking CO₂ out of the air. By ignoring their broader impact on forests and ecosystems, these rules might effectively certify activities which undermine climate, biodiversity, clean air, and water. Even worse is that they might end up offsetting fossil emissions in the EU ETS. Our ecosystems are the strongest buffer against the impacts of climate change, we should not be putting them at risk.”
Martin Pigeon, Forest and Climate Campaigner at Fern said: “Repeating its bioenergy policy mistakes, the European Commission’s Delegated Act incentivises the burning of unlimited amounts of wood in the name of climate action without looking at what this is doing to forests. By trying too much to make things as easy as possible for Bio-CCS and biochar project developers, the Commission has sacrificed climate integrity and trustworthiness. Rewarding the burying of some CO₂ emissions from wood burning, or charcoal, without looking at what the additional wood demand is doing to forests or rewarding the application of charcoal to soils without subsequent monitoring, is likely to worsen, not improve, the climate crisis. Let’s hope investors do not fall for this hot air.”
Mary Booth, PhD, Director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity said: “The Commission’s own studies recognise that burning trees and storing the carbon belowground removes carbon from forests, not the atmosphere. The public and the planet deserve climate policies based on science and reality, not wishful thinking.”